soconfused wrote:
so, why are guys so afraid of "settling down"?
Because then you let yourself get fat. Why would a guy want to bang a fat girl if he could go bang another skinny hottie.
The truth hurts.
soconfused wrote:
so, why are guys so afraid of "settling down"?
Because then you let yourself get fat. Why would a guy want to bang a fat girl if he could go bang another skinny hottie.
The truth hurts.
abRIPPERx wrote:
we have individuals using academic language to make valid arguments here
LOL!
I have had several girlfriends ask me, "If someone came along you were more attracted to than me, would you leave me?" I guess one could wonder why they would ask a question like, but ignore that point.
To answer the question truthfully and to hopefully dissuade questions of the same sort in the future, I answer, "Yes." Of course they are upset, etc.
I know that the only two 'correct' answers to that question are:
1) No.
2) There is no one in the world that I could be more attracted to.
For me, answer 1 would be a lie, and if my answer were #2, I would have already proposed.
To settle down is similar to wondering why an agnostic will not believe in God. If there is any chance there is a better woman out there (one that you would leave your current girlfriend for) isn't it horribly wrong to 'settle down' with your current girlfriend?
Stereotyping, women want to settle down because they are scared of dying alone, men feel no pressure to settle because they don't care if they die alone.
My reverse of the question is: why are women so afraid of dying alone?
Dude where's..., I like your opinion, and you are most probably closer to the "truth" then I was with my statement (which I admit was intentionally provocative).
So, thanks for your input and giving me a new angle to look at this.
I have not read Dawkins "selfish gene" - I want to read it though.
Still, I wonder how much of our actions and behavior can be traced back to genetics and what part is nurtured. I read that heads of humans are disproportionally large (due to our brain evolving so quickly)and therefore giving birth is generally more dangerous to the women then in animals. This is probably why we have developed into a species with relatively few offspring, into which we put more effort in raising them to increase the chance of survival of an individual.
So, then I think how much of the whole typical "nest behavior" that males of our modern culture show (staying with the women, "settling down" and keeping the bond until your partner dies) is really programmed in our genes? I mean, no animal community does that (correct me if I am wrong)- and what benefit do we have from staying with our women after we have raised our offspring?
As post nuptial shutoff and several other threads have shown, reality eventually hits married couples and one or both partners cheat. Why? - if not because, biologically, we see no real benefit in staying with that partner any longer.
dudewheresmycar wrote:
You've been reading Dawkin's "selfish gene" too much. Males need emotional attachment just as much as females.
You're idea of males spreading genes for the sake of spreading genes does not logically flow from evolutionary theory. Humans survive longer if they develop closely communicating and collaborating relationships with the people around them. In no stable society would males just drop the sperm and run; they stay around to raise their children, who can grow to be extra hunters or hands for gathering food to support the community, or extra warriors to deal with the neighboring clan.
Why would every society have some form or marital practice that ties men down to a particular number of female mates, if that is not to the consent of the males. Thousands of years ago, women could do nothing to resist male power assertion, if the natural "male instinct" was as you argue, just spreading sperm without concern for their society, no males would have ever consented to formal marriage or father practices.
Males do not necessarily need emotional attachment as much. The truth of the matter biologically is that men are more likely to stray in order to spread their seed, however, a stable relationship can offer advantages to their offspring's genes. It is reasonable to assert that there is a biological imperative in both directions and it is a trade-off (like anything in evolution). That being said, society has something to do with it. It is still more acceptable for a guy to sleep around than a woman to do so. dudewheresmycar is wrong in the sense that if you notice anything about marital commitments in traditional societies, it is much easier for men to leave women and there are way fewer penalties for male infidelity. It turns out that "selfish" (even Dawkins thinks this is a bad word for it) genes do influence this issue.
Because I am not committed to you, I don't have to answer that question.
I think you mean blasé.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES! wrote:
See "Taxi Driver" for a film about the "blaze" attitude.
because we don't want the highlight of our year to be going to a pizza joint with the family and throwing back a few beers.
dudewheresmycar wrote:
Males need emotional attachment just as much as females.
"Need" Really? "NEED" Get the hell out, you just messing, right?
You are sooooooo wrong. Guys want to chill, and chicks go all emotive. Gets messy.
"Need"... nice one
lmao
I am settled down. I've lived in the same city for years. Happily, contentedly single.
The reason that female infidelity was much more heavily punished than male infidelity is that a female can trick a male into raising an offspring that is not his until adulthood, where as a male cannot trick a female into a similar situation. Men, being physically stronger, can also enforce laws obviously beneficial to them more readily than females can in societies that are sufficiently small. (And since larger societies must develop from smaller ones, tradition will generally continue to hold).
Men being more likely to stray depends on how you look at the statistics. Every heterosexual sex act requires both a female and a male, so if slightly more men are 'straying,' the females who are straying are doing more of it. (I'm considering a society without birth control; every sex act not with your spouse constitutes cheating on either your current or future spouse, since they will be helping to raise the child).
Curious Person wrote:
Men being more likely to stray depends on how you look at the statistics. Every heterosexual sex act requires both a female and a male, so if slightly more men are 'straying,' the females who are straying are doing more of it.
They don't call it "the oldest profession" for nothing.
I'll answer your question with another question: why are women so afraid of "Giving it up"?
eye4Neye wrote:
I'll answer your question with another question: why are women so afraid of "Giving it up"?
Easy: why buy a cow when you can get free milk?
Concerned Girl wrote:
eye4Neye wrote:I'll answer your question with another question: why are women so afraid of "Giving it up"?
Easy: why buy a cow when you can get free milk?
Without disagreeing that women might have cause to be concerned about being easy, I have to ask: what does it say that you can't think of any reason besides sex for a guy to have a relationship with you? Too many women think of relationships as "I bring the p****, you bring everything else."
Remember how you told us that taking us on a date didn't entitle us to sex? Well guess what, ladies, it works both ways. Having sex doesn't entitle you to a relationship. It doesn't even entitle you to a f****** phone call.
So, to the OP, let me ask you this: why should a guy want a relationship with you? What will you add to his life? Remember that he can get sex somewhere else, and even if he can't he has porn to keep him sated. Are you a great cook, and do you love cooking for him? Are you always pleasant to be around? Do you have legit housekeeping skills? Or maybe you're just rich. Think more about bringing something to the table.
Y'all ought to read this book and dispel many of the cliched (and wrong) ides about male and female behavior.
Because deep down, all women are whores.
Oh yeah? And then, who you stay with?
If this were so, then why have men fought over and protected their special woman since the beginning of time?
Because 'Family Court' is a kangaroo court system for taking children away from their fathers.
Because women can abort their motherly responsibilities, but men have no capacity to abort their fatherly responsibilities.
Because in domestic disputes, officers are bound by law to arrest the more potentially physically dangerous person (read: the man) regardless of who appears to have started it or who is more badly injured.
Because men make more than women... because they disproportionately occupy the top and bottom of the wage earning table (which is finite at the bottom, and infinite at the top... stats majors, make your conclusions from there).
Because men have a higher rate of work related deaths.
Because being proud to be a female is to be bold, empowered, and strong, while being proud to be a male is to be chauvinistic, arrogant, and wrong.
Because we still ask why our girls aren't being given the opportunities our boys are, even though girls out number boys in both undergraduate and postgraduate institutions.
Because when a man is accused of a sex crime and proven innocent, he is still a marked man for life by friends family and employers.
Because no fault divorce exists, and a woman can legally steal half of what a man has earned in his life, just by claiming that 'they aren't getting along any more.'
You want to know why men don't want to settle down? Because settling down and everything that goes with it is a raw deal for the male half of a couple.